[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Nearly all tech hubs are centered in and around major US cities. Every major city in the US is a democrat stronghold. There's no avoiding it. Liberalism isn't creating tech hubs, high density of skilled employees, other tech businesses and access to capital is.

This is the west coast equivalent of moving from fresno to silicon valley. It makes sense for a high tech company to do so for many reasons, most of which CT does not and cannot provide. GE, Pfizer, BMS and the others who have left will not be the last. Tech hubs are HOT right now and CT is neither.

And it's absolutely about taxes still. CT is not worth what it costs. Boston is. If not specifically about "cost" it's certainly about "value".

Neither of us can determine the cause/effect of liberalism and creating tech hubs... Correlation does not indicate causation, you are correct. Doesn't mean it isn't true. Doesn't mean it is.

I don't think GE was looking for more value for their tax money-- They were looking for a tech hub and we can't provide that no matter the tax rate. Remember that GE was paying hardly any taxes to begin with...

I imagine the calculus is different if you're a biotech startup?

Regardless our competitiveness in the future is much more about workforce development, environment and creation of an entrepreneurial ecosystem-- not about simply having a lower tax rate.

[SeaDoo342]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

This is devastating.

And admit it... you couldn't be happier

[BicoastalAnn]

It's about value, not price, like he said - GE didn't leave because they couldn't afford CT. They're essentially saying they're willing to pay but only if they're getting everything that a tech hub offers. Makes sense.

[nep321]

CT just needs an exciting world class city IN the state. That would solve all of the state's problems. Being near NYC or Boston doesn't cut it. Hartford or New Haven needs to do something to become a bigger, nationally recognized, popular, cool city that people want to live in.

[BicoastalAnn]

With the markets tanking these days, and the outlooking not being much better (according to some), CT may be in for a rough couple of years - loss of a major HQ and a slowdown of its other major revenue driver (finance).

[texan2yankee]

GE formally employed 5700 people Connecticut and had approximately 149 billion in revenues.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Neither of us can determine the cause/effect of liberalism and creating tech hubs... Correlation does not indicate causation, you are correct. Doesn't mean it isn't true. Doesn't mean it is.

I don't think GE was looking for more value for their tax money-- They were looking for a tech hub and we can't provide that no matter the tax rate. Remember that GE was paying hardly any taxes to begin with...

I imagine the calculus is different if you're a biotech startup?

Regardless our competitiveness in the future is much more about workforce development, environment and creation of an entrepreneurial ecosystem-- not about simply having a lower tax rate.

Biotech is only different in it's age. I assume a look at the histories of other high tech industries would appear much the same. As an industry, it's finally profitable (more money generated than invested), but there's still huge R&D costs and everyone in the game is still trying to figure out how to scale and lower costs. The really big guys, like thermo fisher, owe most of their growth to scaling chemistry (much experience from pharma over last 100+ years) and devices (experience from many industries). Scaling molecular diagnostics, biotherapeutics, gene modification, etc is an entirely different animal and even much of the basic research is sill not quite there yet. The entire Molecular diagnostic industry, for example, only has a market value of around 4 billion dollars-so even the "big guys" in this space are in the low hundreds of millions $ in revenue range. To put that in perspective, using the very mature pharma industry as an example, just Pfizer alone is worth over 60 BILLION dollars. One company.

For these reasons (and many others), biotech has a particularly high affinity for tech hubs. These hubs allow collaboration between other companies (saving millions by not having to re-develop products, workflows, software, etc), centralized resources (IT, universities, incubators, etc) and access to established VC and legal firms with experience in start-ups and smaller established companies trying to grow. This often reaches a critical mass where it is self sustaining and self fulfilling--other companies want in on the energy, collaboration etc and so it creates an attracting force bringing in yet more companies.

This phenomenon is not spontaneous. It requires luck (opportunity), SUPPORTIVE government policies, top notch local research universities, pioneering industry leaders that are both willing and capable of mentoring/nurturing the growth and relationship with local and state governments, and of course lots of $$$$, to name a few ...

[SeaDoo342]

I read that GE said they have multiple possible buyers for the site. Maybe this could be a good thing?

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by SeaDoo342

I read that GE said they have multiple possible buyers for the site. Maybe this could be a good thing?

Scared heart

[SeaDoo342]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Scared heart

Huh?